I will probably order a new MacBook Pro in the next 2 days. After much thought, I have concluded that the 13" would be best for me at this time as I already have an 8-core Mac Pro and so don't need anything terribly powerful (or large).
I would have gone with the 2.53 GHz, but then wondered what difference the extra 0.27 GHz is going to make in practical terms? It's only 12% faster, so does this mean it would take 12% longer to render videos in Final Cut, for instance? So instead of taking 5 minutes to render something on the 2.53 GHz, it would take 5 minutes and 36 seconds on the 2.26 GHz? This is not much difference at all.
On that note, while I do most of my video work on the Mac Pro, I thought it would be nice to have a portable option to store videos and photos when I photograph and film on location. I can only imagine myself doing a minimal amount of video and photo editing on the MacBook (such as assembling very rough cuts that require very little rendering) -- but most of the real work would be completed back at home on the Mac Pro.
Also on the issue of HD video editing, which is mainly what I'll be doing -- I have been using a cousin's late 2008 13" unibody MacBook (it's the 2.0 GHz with just 2 GB of ram) and am astounded at how well it handles 1080p quicktime video imported directly from the camera's SDHC card into the timeline. (I'm using JVC's new GY-HM100 camera, btw, which records native Quicktime movies at 35 Mbps onto SDHC cards, which will work really well with the new SD slot MacBooks). I can scrub the playhead across the timeline smoothly and even unrendered transitions (such as dissolves) play back with no issues. And all of this is with 35 Mbps footage! So this had me thinking that I probably don't need the 2.53 GHz MacBook Pro if a 2 GHz MacBook with just 2 GB of ram can handle it quite well.
So I will most likely buy the 2.26 GHz version unless someone can convince me of the extra benefit of the 2.53 GHz (and part of me secretly wants the "bigger" option even if it makes no huge difference, lol).
I would have gone with the 2.53 GHz, but then wondered what difference the extra 0.27 GHz is going to make in practical terms? It's only 12% faster, so does this mean it would take 12% longer to render videos in Final Cut, for instance? So instead of taking 5 minutes to render something on the 2.53 GHz, it would take 5 minutes and 36 seconds on the 2.26 GHz? This is not much difference at all.
On that note, while I do most of my video work on the Mac Pro, I thought it would be nice to have a portable option to store videos and photos when I photograph and film on location. I can only imagine myself doing a minimal amount of video and photo editing on the MacBook (such as assembling very rough cuts that require very little rendering) -- but most of the real work would be completed back at home on the Mac Pro.
Also on the issue of HD video editing, which is mainly what I'll be doing -- I have been using a cousin's late 2008 13" unibody MacBook (it's the 2.0 GHz with just 2 GB of ram) and am astounded at how well it handles 1080p quicktime video imported directly from the camera's SDHC card into the timeline. (I'm using JVC's new GY-HM100 camera, btw, which records native Quicktime movies at 35 Mbps onto SDHC cards, which will work really well with the new SD slot MacBooks). I can scrub the playhead across the timeline smoothly and even unrendered transitions (such as dissolves) play back with no issues. And all of this is with 35 Mbps footage! So this had me thinking that I probably don't need the 2.53 GHz MacBook Pro if a 2 GHz MacBook with just 2 GB of ram can handle it quite well.
So I will most likely buy the 2.26 GHz version unless someone can convince me of the extra benefit of the 2.53 GHz (and part of me secretly wants the "bigger" option even if it makes no huge difference, lol).